SOLARCON ANTRON 99 VERSES THE SOLARCON IMAX 2000

[wavrider]

I also did side by side comparisons per say.

Two separate towers same height 55'.

Different stations to the North, West and South. Distances of 20 miles to 45 miles. All tests were performed within a few minutes of each other, 11pm at night no DX was noticed.

All three stations did not notice any difference of the two antennas.

I think the Imax received just a little better than the A99, as the A99 had more ground noise.

Neither antenna had any ground radials and both had rf chokes at the feed point. Ugly Balun.

I have used both verticals on 10/11/12/15 meters and both worked well, no antenna coupler required.

 

[Marconi]

I also did side by side comparisons per say.

Two separate towers same height 55'.

Different stations to the North, West and South. Distances of 20 miles to 45 miles. All tests were performed within a few minutes of each other, 11pm at night no DX was noticed.

All three stations did not notice any difference of the two antennas.

I think the Imax received just a little better than the A99, as the A99 had more ground noise.

Neither antenna had any ground radials and both had rf chokes at the feed point. Ugly Balun.

I have used both verticals on 10/11/12/15 meters and both worked well, no antenna coupler required.

Wavrider, you've made a fair effort at comparing these two antennas. For me it's at least as fair as most CBr's might make, and it is similar to what I've done here over time. I understand the arguments against testing this way, but there seems to be issues either way...so in the end I'm not sure there is a best way of making comparisons unless the testing is on a qualified field test site with suitable equipment.

When you worked both verticals on 10/11/12/15 meters did you consider any signal differences between a few of the contacts you made in that experience? I just wonder how effective either of these antennas is on 15 meters as compared to 11 meter where they both were made to work.

 

[TonyV225]

I run mine on 17 Meters aswell and it works fine no issues at all which is why Ill always have one of these versatile verticals up in the air and and have a new one that is strictly used for porable or field work. Is it the best antenna in the world?? Probably not but Ive yet to find a vertical thats this forgiving or versatile as the Antron / Solarcon 99 and thats sold at that price

 

[Marconi]

I run mine on 17 Meters aswell and it works fine no issues at all which is why Ill always have one of these versatile verticals up in the air and and have a new one that is strictly used for porable or field work. Is it the best antenna in the world?? Probably not but Ive yet to find a vertical thats this forgiving or versatile as the Antron / Solarcon 99 and thats sold at that price

Tony I hear folks vehemently criticize these two antennas, but I tend to agree with you on the positive response I get from both, to be so economical, durable, and easy to handle in mounting.

Have you ever had a contact follow your from 17 meters to 11 meters and compare the TX/RX signals? I know they work over a big range, but does the antenna suffer some going that low in frequency?

I'm just curious.

 

[wavrider]

Marconi,

On 15 meters I have only worked DX. Usually with just 100 watts but some times with as much as a KW depending on the pile up and distance to the DX station.


It just seems to me that the A99 is more noise on receive. Some may argue that it is more sensitive to signals etc etc, it just "sounded" more noise to me, and I listen to the radio to hear any stations I may want make contact with and the less noise I hear in the radio the happier I am so the I2K seemed the less noise antenna.

I did not notice any received signal strength per say "except" a good friend of mine who lives 45 miles from me. The I2K seemed to have a needles width better receive on the farthest station during the side by side comparison test.

This was done with AM carrier on 11 meters, no other bands were tested.
Not a field test, just a real world comparison at my QTH using my rig.

The results are as stated, IMO either vertical will work just fine and one is not any better than the other on TX, on receive the A99 seemed to have more noise, BUT that is at my QTH with my rig, maybe the neighbors had his garage fluorescent lights on who the heck knows where the noise came from but the A99 had more noise, the I2K was more quiet.

 

[Z-MAN 369]

I replaced my A99 last summer with a Sirio Tornado.....HUGE improvement in my RX & TX. Metal is better!

 

[W5LZ]

This sort of comparison isn't very informative. These antennas are completely different, one's a 1/2 wave, the other is a 5/8 wave, different characteristics completely. It boils down to the coverage of the radiation pattern. If one suits your purposes better than the other then that would be the one to use. In general, meaning there will always be exceptions, the 5/8 wave antenna (Imax 2000) would probably be my choice. Offers the 'wider' coverage, but also has some liabilities. There is no 'best' for all situations, you have to make a judgement for each instance.
Good luck.
- 'Doc

 

[Onelasttime]

The matching network at the bottom aka " the coils" are simpler and more efficient on the Imax 2000. Less loss in the matching means more of your power is actually getting to the radiating element. Likewise less signal is lost in matching so your receive is better. No free lunch though the noise will be louder to no selective filtering of the white noise. That extra length makes it easier to tune it to 50ohms so less loss. In a perfect world we would not need a tuning network so we would have near 100% efficiency but since that world has not been discovered yet we have to make due! LOL Lets not confuse marketing with real world results.